I would like to ask that Joan Walsh post her suggestions as to what Obama should do to overcome his "troubles" with "white working-class voters." This has become such a truism, because it is repeated so often, much like Cheney's insistence that weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq.

Specifically, other than an occasional campaign stop in Appalachia, what should Obama DO? What policy positions should he take vis-a-vis Clinton to win over these voters? What policies, specifically, of Obama's do they object? What should he fix in his stump speech? What should he address?

Let's not bring up gaffes, because that's water under the bridge. I would like Joan to answer how Obama should campaign differently, or change his policy positions.

When looking at Obama's positions v. Clinton's, I would like to know what attracts white working-class voters to Clinton and not Obama; and, given a choice between Obama and McCain, why, based on policies, again, they would rather vote McCain.

I've not read or heard this explained anywhere in the media, only just the vague word "trouble" is aired.

Actually, Obama did give a speech about the grave dangers of going to war with Iraq. He was a legislator at the time in Illinois. It was politically NOT safe to give such a speech, and to go on the public record as to being against the war.

Fifteen million of us demonstrated against the war the weekend of Valentine's Day in 2003. I was one of them. We were cursed, spat upon, fingered, yelled down, fuck-youed, etc. It wasn't particularly safe for any of us, let alone a politician with aspirations. This country was/is bordering on proto-fascist, the only thing we need next are the goons in black shirts to beat us all up on the next demonstration against the war on Iran.

True, Obama didn't face a Senate decision, but this is irrelevant. He showed clear judgment, Hillary did not. Hillary is an unprincipled calculator who has shown herself to be unfit to be president. It is true that Hillary is basically saying "Nominate me because I'm white, and I'll win the white vote." I would rather nominate the better candidate and LOSE the general election than take her argument.

And keep all this God shit out of it.

This is a good argument for secularization of our political culture.

I would love to see Clinton, as majority leader, put on her steel-toed boots, call the press, and, with the cameras rolling, drop-kick Lieberman's ass from the steps of the Senate. Lovely!

I love it Alex! A hot Black(?) guy with two chicks, one with a Mohawk cut, with hips gyrating!

GO KAY BARNES!!! LOVE YOU!

This is the type of ad that would make me WANT to vote for Kay Barnes. She's a party animal...

But hey, I'm one of those evil lefties with San Francisco-type values.

This is so mind-numbingly stupid and vapid, it blows me away that a Republican couldn't even come up with an ad concerning the issues.

so unscientific. I hear it on CNN, NPR, and Salon: divining how voters will make up their minds in a general election based on behavior in a primary is comparing two, totally different events. First, you have absolutely no Republican primary, so many would-be democrats went to the polls (remember there were local races and initiatives to vote on) and voted Democratically in the presidential race. Secondly, many of these primaries are open, actually allowing Republicans to vote as well. Thirdly, the exit polls showing how many people are actually hard-core Democrats in these later states are full of error, because people don't tell the truth, or don't think how they will vote in November.

My point is that many, many people who are voting in these later primaries, after March 1, especially, are not Democrats. Yes, some probably went for Obama too, but I suspect many more went for Clinton.

So all of this "Appalachian problem" is pretty much fabricated. I suspect that Clinton and Obama would do equally well in a general election match-up with McCain because more people will vote based on party affiliation. But I'm guessing here. I'm just trying to point out how unscientific this whole scenario is. It's like studying toxicological effects of putattive carcinogens in an amoeba while trying to apply the results and data to humans. I mean, come on, these are two totally different beasts, an open primary with no Republican contest, and a do-or-die general election.

Is that news outlets and websites keep touting, almost non-stop, that Obama has a problem with "white, working class" voters. Please, someone point to me, in either his written statements, his spoken statements, or his policy positions posted on his websites, or his two books he has penned, what these alleged problems actually ARE with "white, working class" voters. I read these articles, but there is never an objection raised concerning his policy positions vis-a-vis the "white, working class" voters.

The articles invariably leave the impression that these white don't like him because, ummm, his race? His ethnicity? I simply don't get it, it's like 2 plus 2 equals 5 in my mind. It doesn't click.

Furthermore, the Clinton camp claims that Hillary will win the white vote. But with exit polls in PA, KY, WV, OH, and to some extent, IN (in certain rural counties) saying that anywhere from 30-50% of these voters would never vote for Obama in the general election, I cannot believe that these voters are core Democrats.

I say, "screw 'em" as Hillary said in the '90s.

As Marx wrote, "A slave who continues to want to be a slave, deserves to be a slave." In other words, let 'em vote Republican, and they get what they deserve, because many of these people are too damn stupid to vote their interests.

Pure conjecture. Keep to the facts when trying to win an argument. Making shit up is the sign of desperation.